We are anonymous, we are legion

Censorship makes India fall two places on global internet freedom chart

praskrishna — 2012-09-27T10:37:47Z

A recently released global report on the internet freedom rated India 39th in 2012, a slip from two places last year.

The article by Dilnaz Boga was published in DNA on September 27, 2012.

The report titled, Freedom on the net 2012 (FOTN): A global assessment of internet and digital media by Freedom House, a Washington-based monitoring group conducted a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 47 countries.

Quoting Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, the report said 309 specific items (URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) have been blocked by the government. But officially, the government has admitted to blocking 245 web pages for inflammatory content hosting of provocative content.

Ketan Tanna, India analyst for Freedom House told DNA, “A reflection of the downward spiral in the freedom on the net that Indians enjoy is evident in the upward revision of scores for India in the FOTN 2012 report. India was one of the only 4 of the 20 countries that “recently experienced declines” and are democracies. The other three are Mexico, Turkey and South Korea.”

Internet usage in India continues to increase, with tens of millions of new users getting online each year. According to the International Telecommunications Union, internet penetration was 10% — or about 120 million people at the end of 2011. Among internet users, 90 million were ‘active,’ accessing it at least once a month (70 million urban and 20 million rural).

The report has mentioned that in India, “amid several court cases regarding intermediaries’ responsibility for hosting illegal content, much evidence has surfaced that intermediaries are taking down content without fully evaluating or challenging the legality of the request”.

Citing an example, Tanna said in December 2011, the website Cartoons against Corruption was suspended by its hosting company after a complaint filed with the Mumbai police alleged that the site’s cartoons ridiculed parliament and national emblems. “As a result of such dynamics, large swaths of online content are disappearing, and the losses are far more difficult to reverse than the mere blocking of a website,” he added.

More common than website blocking is the removal of content based on judicial orders, government directives, and citizen complaints. This phenomenon that has increased in recent years and in some cases, targeted content on political, social, and religious topics, the report said.

The Indian authorities had submitted 68 removal requests covering 358 items between January and June 2011. According to Google, 255 items related to what it categorised as “government criticism,” while 39 involved defamation and 8 pertained to hate speech.

In January, responding to a freedom of information request, the home ministry reported that the government orders 7,500 to 9,000 phone interceptions per month, the report disclosed. Criticising this practice and the government’s disregard for the Constitution, the data revealed, “Established guidelines regulate the ability of state officials to intercept communications, but India lacks an appropriate legal framework and procedures to ensure proper oversight of Intelligence agencies’ growing surveillance and interception capabilities, opening the possibility of misuse and unconstitutional invasion of citizens’ privacy.”

As another method of controlling speech and activism online, governments have imposed temporary shutdowns of the internet or mobile phone networks during protests or other sensitive times. Localised internet shutdowns and mobile phone shutdowns occurred in India due to security concerns, the report said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-india-sep-27-2012-dilnaz-boga-censorship-makes-india-fall-two-places-on-global-internet-freedom-chart

Pitroda seeks to put govt information in public domain

praskrishna — 2012-09-27T05:13:05Z

In the first-ever Indian government press conference on Twitter, Sam Pitroda, adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on public information infrastructure and innovations, championed the cause of putting government information in the public domain to usher in openness and empowerment.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on September 25, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

“In India, we have the Right to Information (Act) but the information is locked up in files,” he said in a video that was uploaded on YouTube before the conference started. Pitroda said the government has various plans to build robust information infrastructure on a scale that has never been done before.

“I firmly believe that information is the fourth pillar of democracy along with (the) legislature, executive and judiciary,” he tweeted as opening remarks during the press conference titled “Democratization of information”.

	Even though Pitroda largely reiterated the government’s already announced plans in the space of digitization, the move to hold a press conference over Twitter has been largely construed as as a sign that the administration, criticised for attempting to rein in social media, is trying to come to terms with it. Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society, said too much shouldn’t be read into Pitroda holding a press conference on Twitter. One government bureaucrat available on Twitter for a fixed period doesn’t make up for the non-existence of the government on social media, he said. “They (government) should be available all the time.”

Even though Pitroda largely reiterated the government’s already announced plans in the space of digitization, the move to hold a press conference over Twitter has been largely construed as as a sign that the administration, criticised for attempting to rein in social media, is trying to come to terms with it.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society, said too much shouldn’t be read into Pitroda holding a press conference on Twitter. One government bureaucrat available on Twitter for a fixed period doesn’t make up for the non-existence of the government on social media, he said. “They (government) should be available all the time.”

The department of electronics and information technology recently issued guidelines for government agencies on improved engagement with citizens through social media. Tuesday’s press conference may spark a trend of more such engagements on social media platforms by government agencies.

Pitroda said that the public information infrastructure (PII) will include a national knowledge network that will connect 1,500 nodes for universities, colleges, research labs and libraries along with connecting 250,000 panchayats in the country through fibre optics. The information network will be operational in the next two year, Pitroda said in the YouTube video.

The government’s open data platform (http://www.data.gov.in), the beta site for which was launched some time ago, will provide access to government data and documents, he said.

Even though the government’s battles with the Internet continue over issues of regulation, which have often been construed as censorship, an increasing number of political leaders and agencies have been using the route to get their message across.

Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi has sought to engage with people through video chat on Google+ Hangout. West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee has been using Facebook to make public her views on recent economic and political developments.

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has also been communicating over Twitter in the recent past. The authorities have sought to block accounts that style themselves as belonging to the Prime Minister. Account holders have said that some of these are satirical in nature.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-september-25-2012-surabhi-agarwal-pitroda-seeks-to-put-govt-information-in-public-domain

The Five Monkeys & Ice-cold Water

sunil — 2012-10-30T10:43:38Z

The Indian government provides leadership, both domestically and internationally, when it comes to access to knowledge.

This article by Sunil Abraham was published in Deccan Chronicle on September 16, 2012.

Our domestic patent policy ensures that generic medicines are available and largely affordable not only within India but also in Africa and elsewhere. It also allows Indians to consume a wide range of technological innovations without worrying about legal bans that are an otherwise common feature in the developed countries, thanks to phenomena such as the ongoing mobile phone patent wars.

Copyright policy, including the last amendment of the copyright act, has ensured that fair dealing and the rights of students, researchers, disabled, etc., are protected. Texts, audio and video for education and entertainment are relatively affordable, especially in comparison to other countries in the Asia-Pacific.

Even at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, other developing countries look to India for guidance. The interventions of the copyright registrar G.R. Raghavender and the Indian team won praise during the most recent round of negotiations for the Treaty for the Visually Impaired. An excellent example of India's soft power protecting public interest at home and abroad.

In diametrical contrast, India has a terrible track record when it comes to freedom of expression, especially expression mediated by networked technologies such as telecommunications and the Internet.

Our policy-makers seem determined to extinguish the privacy of communications and also anonymous/pseudonymous speech through such devices as Know Your Customer (KYC) and data retention requirements for accessing the Internet through cyber-cafes, mobile phones, dial-up or broadband, ban on open wi-fi networks, plans to tie together Aadhaar and NATGRID and Central Monitoring System (CMS) to track a citizen using his/her UID across devices, networks and intermediaries, and requiring real-time interception equipment to be installed at all network and data centres.

All these without any horizontal privacy law or a data protection law that is compliant with international best practices. Security hawks argue that this pervasive, multi-tiered surveillance regime helps thwart criminal and terrorist attacks, but its poor design extracts a terrible price in terms of freedom of expression.

Citizens who cannot express themselves anonymously and privately begin to censor themselves, seriously undermining our democracy, which is most importantly founded on an anonymous expression, the electoral ballot.

In addition, in April 2011, rules under the amended IT Act were notified for intermediaries that have a chilling effect on free speech via unclear and unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression, encouragement of private censorship without any notice to those impacted, missing procedure for redress, and lack of penalties for those who abuse the rules to target legitimate speech. This was followed by calls for proactive censorship of social media, which caused much outrage amongst the twitterati.

Even when the government had legitimate grounds (the recent exodus of North-East Indians) to censor free speech, it overreached and acted incompetently, cracking down on parody accounts on social media rather than carefully configuring the text message ban. As if that weren't enough, the government beats up a cartoonist and jails him for sedition.

There’s a plan behind such attacks on free speech. The powerful in India, with their fragile egos, can afford expensive lawyers who can ensure that for those who dare to speak their mind, “the process is the punishment”, as Lawrence Liang of the Alternative Law Forum put it. Needless to say, cartoonists and others that dare to speak their mind cannot usually afford the time and expense of courts.

An experiment featuring monkeys, bananas and ice-cold water, commonly attributed to the late American psychologist Harry Harlow, explains what’s being attempted by those who attack free speech. First, five monkeys are put in a cage with bananas hanging from the top that can be reached by climbing a ladder. Every time one of the monkeys try to climb the ladder, ice-cold water is thrown on all of them. Soon, the monkeys learn not to climb the ladder.

Then, one of them is replaced with a monkey that has never been drenched with ice-cold water. When the new monkey tries to climb the ladder, the other four monkeys attack it and prevent it from reaching the banana. This is continued till all the original monkeys are replaced with new ones.

When that’s done, although none of the monkeys left in the cage has ever been drenched with ice-cold water, they continue to enforce the regulation on themselves. This is what has happened in China. This is what is being attempted here – to social engineer the Indian netizen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-deccan-chronicle-sep-16-2012-sunil-abraham-the-five-monkeys-and-ice-cold-water

E-Governance, Identity & Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-09-26T06:17:03Z

This chapter will look at different legislations, projects, and policies pertaining to e-governance and identity that India has put in place, and examine both the strengths and the weaknesses of these, through the lense of privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/e-governance-identity-privacy.pdf

An Introduction to the Issues in Internet Governance

smarika — 2014-04-22T02:47:04Z

That the internet cannot be governed was a central conviction of the early architects of the internet. In many ways it proved true when a majority of nation-States were kept off interference with the functioning of the internet. However with growing popularity of the internet, countries of the world are increasingly vying for control over it. This has become especially significant with the involvement of developing nations into the power struggle.

With the proposal by India at the UNGA to form a Committee for Internet-Related Policies, there has emerged the widespread fear of “UN overtake of the internet,” and internet governance has become a major focus for internet users in the third world.

The present blog post is a humble attempt to canvass the controversies in the arena of internet governance (IG). These controversies broadly focus around the institutional structures to govern the internet. Here, I first discuss the evolution of these models against the historical background of IG and then proceed to present criticisms of each of these models, with an emphasis on the interests of the regular internet user.

Where It All Started: The World Summit on Information Society

Discussions on IG took an international flavor with the convening of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva in mid-2002. The Summit originally had an agenda to construct better telecommunications infrastructure in developing nations to erase the digital divide, as reflected in the self-declared purpose of WSIS as “ to harness the potential of knowledge and technology to promote the development Goals of the Millenium Declaration.” But this agenda was modified in two important ways as WSIS progressed. First, the focus was expanded from mere improvement of infrastructure to a variety of human rights issues involving communications, like freedom of speech and privacy, which came to be known as internet public policy issues. Second, a new dominant agenda of technical governance of the internet emerged.

A New Mode of Governance: multi-stakeholderism on the Internet

Subsequent to the first WSIS phase in Geneva, the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) Report confirmed the larger policy issues concerning the internet rather than mere improvement of telecommunications infrastructure, as an aspect of IG by choosing a broad definition of IG, which included both creation of public policy and technical governance. The Geneva Declaration of 2003, which resulted from the 2002 WSIS process, held that internet governance “should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations.” This multi-stakeholder model for governance with involvement of nation-State participants was reflective of the largely networked management of the internet till the time, and hence pretty revolutionary. The Geneva Declaration however did tone down its revolutionary flavor by dividing the areas of governance concerns between the different multi-stakeholders such that the public policy role was assigned to the nation-States. It said, at para 49:

a. “Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues;
b. The private sector has had and should continue to have an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields;
c. Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role;
d. Intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues;
e. International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.”

This was reaffirmed in 2005 by the Tunis Agenda at para 35. Thus a sectorally-defined multi-stakeholderism for internet governance was agreed upon with traditional forms of State security being protected from large-scale erosion.

Enhanced Co-operation to Govern the Internet

The Tunis Agenda further called for a process called “enhanced co-operation” to enable governments frame international public policy issues related to the internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, as follows:

“69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues.”

The scope of enhanced co-operation however, was not strictly limited to framing of public policy issues of socio-cultural nature, like privacy and freedom of expression on the internet. The Tunis Agenda, in fact, recognizes that enhanced co-operation should include framing of principles on public policy issues related to the CIRs. Such principles are proposed to be global in scope:

“70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles.”

What about the ICANN? : The Problem of US Oversight

As mentioned earlier, during the WSIS process technical governance emerged as an important part of internet governance. And a major feature of technical governance comprised of the control of the organization which administers significant technical aspects of the internet, which was the ICANN.

ICANN is the body largely understood to manage what later came to be known as Critical Internet Resources (CIRs); in other words the basic internet infrastructure. ICANN is a non-profit corporation with a multi-stakeholder model, incorporated under Californian laws in 1998 upon the directive of the US Department of Commerce. Its main functions include the allocation of address blocks to the Regional Internet Registries, coordinating assignment of unique protocol numbers, the management of DNS root zone file.

These functions however are performed under US political oversight under the IANA contract which ICANN has with the U.S. Government. Consequently all edits made to the root zone file must be audited and approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC). This means that any addition or removal of a top-level domain (TLD) must have the approval of DoC. It includes the addition or removal of country-code top level domains (ccTLDs) like .in or .uk. Next there is the DoC contract with Verisign, the US- based corporation which owns the master root server and owns the .com and .net TLDs. This contract requires Verisign to implement all the technical coordination decisions made through ICANN and follow the US Executive directives regarding the root zone file.

The problem is that this political oversight by the US government is not taken very well by the other countries. Why should a single State exercise unilateral power over such important resources which seemingly have the potential to blackout the internet in any part of the world? We all want a share in control over the CIRs, the other States argue. US unilaterism makes functioning of ICANN too arbitrary and it is in US State interests to keep ICANN least accountable, others argue. Add to it the empirical evidence of abuse of its oversight function by the US government, and the legitimacy of the argument is enhanced enormously. However resolving the question of how ICANN should be managed, is a matter of great controversy and none too easy.

Nonetheless it is very important to note that it would be rather naïve to equate the problem of internet governance to the issue of ICANN oversight. Internet governance comprises of both issues: of freedom, privacy, access to knowledge and other aspects of the internet affecting human rights- what is known as internet public policy, as well as technical governance, one of whose aspects is the management of CIRs, and of which ICANN oversight is an important part.

The Oversight-Policy Connection: He Who Manages the CIRs Controls Policy on the Internet

It is fine to say that States will make public policy while sticking to a form of multi-stakeholder model, but none of it holds much ground unless models for implementation of such policy are secured. This is where the issues of technical governance, like ICANN oversight and the framing of public policy on the internet get linked. A procedure to allocate address blocks or separation of registries or registrars raises questions of competition policy. Editing of root zone files can have impact on national economies over the world and be tied with problems of digital divide like multilingualism on the internet. Issue of new TLDs brings forth considerations about trademark law and policy. New DNS securitization regimes have the potential to hamper national security! In the words of Milton Mueller, “To enforce public policy upon the Internet is to regulate technical and operational matters (and vice-versa).”

In such a scenario, every step to further enhanced co-operation ultimately gets focused upon the ICANN oversight issue, as the latter, with its authority over the management of CIRs, lies at the core of any attempt to frame public policy for the internet. And so in the subsequent post the focus will be on the various models proposed for ICANN oversight and their respective criticisms. Not least because all of the models proposed for ICANN oversight tie up with one or the other model proposed to further enhanced co-operation.

“Democratise the Internet”: Involve All Nation-States and Only Nation-States

In the last post, I discussed how enhanced co-operation to achieve a mechanism for internet governance under the Tunis Agenda can be classified into two broad portions: development of public policy and a mechanism for technical governance; and how ICANN oversight constitutes an important part of technical governance. I further discussed the relationship between internet public policy and technical governance and how it is impossible to frame or implement relevant public policy without an understanding and control over technical aspects constituting the internet.

In the present post, I embark upon an analysis of the various governance models which are suggested for the management of ICANN. Even though ICANN management is only a small segment of enhanced co-operation, I think there exist a number of parallels between models suggested for the accountability of ICANN and models for furthering the broader process of enhanced co-operation. Therefore an understanding of governance models for ICANN can also significantly enhance one’s understanding of models for enhanced co-operation, and it is to this end that the following exercise is undertaken. Here, I have also tried to link broader models for enhanced co-operation to models for ICANN oversight to aid this understanding; however yet again I do strongly warn against equating enhanced co-operation to the administration of ICANN.

Though multiplicity of proposed governance mechanisms abound, four broad models are popularly debated with regard to oversight upon ICANN. The basic idea behind each of these models is to remove the arbitrariness associated with the ICANN (currently in the form of US unilateral oversight), which as discussed earlier is the central problem with it. Consequently each model offers some rationale about how it can reduce power sans accountability of the ICANN over the CIRs. However none of these models seems to offer the common ground for negotiations for all the stakeholders involved in IG due to various issues with each of them.

I discuss the first model along with its pros and cons in the present post.

Model I: Oversight by an Intergovernmental Organisation

Parallel Enhanced Co-operation Model: International Telecommunications Union (ITU)

This model proposes that the oversight function over ICANN by the US Government be replaced by an organization composed of the nation-State representatives from countries all around the world.

Pros

The following arguments are usually advanced in favour of such a model.

Democratising the oversight mechanism: It is argued that such a model would be helpful in making the oversight function democratic, as all the governments of the world would now be represented in the oversight regime.
Giving nation-States power to enforce public policy: It is argued that by having an intergovernmental oversight mechanism, the governments of the world would be adequately able to exercise their sovereign right as per the Geneva Declaration, i.e. making public policy for the internet.
Curtailing the power of non-State actors to make policy decisions: It is argued that by having an intergovernmental oversight mechanism, non-State actors would be prevented from making public policy decisions via technical governance, which private interests and unelected representatives should not have the power to do.
Making use of international law to produce accountability: The current ICANN regime functions in US and is subject to US laws, which those outside the US, deem to be not a great situation. It is obvious that such dissatisfaction arises from the fact that US laws are subject to change by the US Congress, which non-US nationals have no representation in. The argument therefore is to use international law, which is global in scope in order to govern ICANN, rather than a country-specific law.

The ITU is an enhanced co-operation model in this regard, as it provides the intergovernmental mechanism which the above model for ICANN oversight envisions. It is supported by the more countries like China and Russia, which lay store by Statist institutions. Though no formal takeover of the ICANN by the ITU has been agreed to, or even the use of ITU as such, to make public policy for the internet, in pursuance of enhanced co-operation, the Temporary Document-64, containing proposals for the amendment of ITRs to expand ITU’s scope to the internet at the upcoming World Congress on Information Technology in November 2012, seems to advocate for such a mechanism. Although it is to be noted that there are no comments regarding ITU’s role social policy issues on the web, like censorship.

Cons

The intergovernmental oversight/enhanced co-operation model is however criticized on the following grounds.

Erosion of bottom-up processes: It is argued that the intergovernmental model of oversight is a stark degradation of the bottom-up processes on which the internet has been built and flourished. In other words, intergovernmental oversight is likely to hamper democratic management of CIRs, as on the international arena, States represent their interest as States (interests like national security and defence concerns) and not the interests of their citizens. Add to this the fact that not all States of the world are democratically elected, and one begins to see a major anti-democracy stance in this model. In such a scenario it is likely that the CIR management process would be used to further geopolitical rivalries between nation-States rather than promote public interest.
International law is not carved in citizens’ interests: This is an extension of the previous argument as it says that international law has been structured to serve the interests of sovereign powers and not that of individual citizens, a.k.a. internet users. Institutions under international law for protecting human rights are not strong and the relevant processes are slow and ineffective. Additionally, it is argued that in case ICANN is internationalized, it will be subject purely to the whims of the governments of the world and will have even less accountability.
Intergovernmental oversight will slow down technical processes: From the viewpoint of the technical community, intergovernmental oversight will slow down technical functioning and decision-making by miring it in layers of bureaucracy. Such a structure would be in stark contrast with the very architectural rationale of the internet: a free and fast medium of communication realised by the end-to-end principle. It will also slow down the growth of the internet and is likely to overturn decades of hard work by the technical community with the use of Veto powers in every stage of decision-making by the oversight committee and limited understanding of the internet architecture.
Promotion of traditional communications industry at behest of internet industry: It is also largely perceived that the most nation-States in the world, with strong lobbies for traditional communications industry will use their power in ICANN oversight to retard the growth of internet communications. A recent example is the case of Ethiopia where use of VOIP services can be punished with upto 15 years in prison, in order to preserve the State-owned telephone monopoly. With ITU as the parallel enhanced-co-operation model this threat becomes even more severe as ITU is dominated by giant telecom companies which will push to no end to restrict competition from the internet sector.
Fragmentation of global internet into national internets: This is a worst-case scenario envisioned by the critics who believe that this model has the potential to fragment the one global internet into a multitude of nationally regulated internets, because of the high level of power given to nation-States, who would try to strengthen their sovereignty claims over the internet. Some steps in this direction have already been set in motion by the Chinese government, underlining that the threat of such a worst-case scenario may be very real.

The next post analyses another model for ICANN governance: a hierarchical multi-stakeholder model, and which by analogy can be extended to a model for enhanced co-operation.

Call for Multi-stakeholder Governance (With The Appropriate Regulation)

In the last post I discussed the pros and cons of an intergovernmental model for ensuring accountability of the ICANN. In this post, I analyse the second broad model of oversight of ICANN by a hierarchical multi-stakeholder organization. By analogy, a parallel model for enhanced co-operation would be the Committee On Internet Related Policies proposed by India at the UN.

Model II: Oversight by a Hierarchical multi-stakeholder Organisation

Parallel Enhanced Co-operation Model: Committee on Internet Related Policies (CIRP)

This model was developed to temper the unlimited power of nation-States in the intergovernmental oversight model. The simple idea here is add more stakeholders into the oversight mechanism process so that the national governments are held accountable to the other stakeholders and vice-versa. Although a major departure from previous governance models by allowing for the participation of all stakeholders in the governance process, this model still predicates itself upon the nation-State hegemony. This it does by assigning decision-making privileges only to the States, while the other stakeholders are relegated to a position where they can participate only in policy discussion processes.

The UN Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) proposed by the Indian government is a model which embodies the above structure of functioning in matters of enhanced co-operation. It proposes the formation of four advisory bodies involving the stakeholders identified by the Tunis Agenda i.e. the Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter-Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community. These four advisory bodies would discuss policy issues and inputs from each of these bodies would then be submitted to the CIRP which would be composed of representatives of 50 nation-States, chosen or elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation. The CIRP would report annually to the UN General Assembly to present its recommendations.

However, many aspects of the CIRP proposal still remain unclear: for example- the budgetary structure, its relationship with the ICANN and the questionable need for an advisory body composed of international and intergovernmental organisations for a committee already composed of nation-States.

However taking into account that a CIRP-like model embodying the hierarchical multi-stakeholder structure does have the potential to discharge the ICANN oversight function, a broad analysis can be made regarding its pros and cons, without going into the fine details of the CIRP proposal specifically.

Pros

In support of the hierarchical multi-stakeholder model, certain additional arguments are made apart from the arguments already made in favour of an intergovernmental model for ICANN oversight. These are as following:

Strengthening bottom-up processes: It is argued that such a model takes into account and preserves the multi-stakeholder structure upon which the internet has been built and thrived. Involvement of all stakeholders in internet governance is further deemed to be important to understand various aspects of the internet in terms of technical functioning and community impact, and to preserve the free flow of information—areas which might not be fully understood by nation-States. Hence, being informed by the relevant stakeholders in this regard would be crucial to good policy-making processes by consolidating bottom-up processes in internet governance.

Control on unlimited power of nation-States: It is argued that such a multi-stakeholder model is also important to curtail the power of nation-States to dominate the internet as has been the case with other traditional media. The potential of the internet lies in the low-cost tools of communication to a global audience that it provides an individual user. This potential however is always under the threat of erosion by Statist interests, which would typically like to control the information flowing into their jurisdiction by putting forth the argument of sovereignty. A multi-stakeholder model in such a scenario, can act as a check upon the furtherance of the interests of nation-States, which cannot always be equated to public interest, especially with concerns like freedom of expression and privacy.

Optimum model for internet governance: A pragmatist argument in favour of the present model is that it is perhaps the only model which in the present scenario, nation-States around the world would perhaps agree to, and which at the same time would optimize benefits for other stakeholders by involving them in an unprecedented international governance model. The alternative to this model in the current political scenario, it is opined, can only be strict regulations by a intergovernmental organization or the continuance of US unilateralism, both of which are undesirable options compared to the present model. The basic drift of the argument being that something is better than nothing.

Cons

The hierarchical multi-stakeholder model of internet governance however comes under criticism upon the following grounds:

Problems in recognition of stakeholders: A recurring problem with regard to any multi-stakeholder model is how to define who constitutes “a stakeholder” in internet governance. This problem was encountered even during the IGF constitution process, where the proposal for election of multi-stakeholder representatives to the MAG was swept off in favour of the nomination of the members. In a multi-stakeholder model therefore, deciding who can participate in the policy process as a “stakeholder” remains a tough task. In this context, a civil society representative may end up participating in the policy process without having the support or recognition of the civil society. Another perspective may even ask if nation-States can be deemed as stakeholders in internet governance. The problem of who defines, legitimizes and authorizes “a stakeholder” to be one then comes increasingly to fore.
Failure to provide a useful check upon Statist power: Though the present multi-stakeholder model claims to confine unlimited Statist power on the future of the internet, the question is does it really help in achieving the same? Because the ultimate policy decision making power in such a model lies with the nation-States themselves. Which implies that substantive power would still lie with nation-States who are likely to use it aggressively to further their interests. The multi-stakeholder structure then manages to be reduced to a mere symbol for bottom-up processes, but in fact fails to ensure the implementation of the same.

In the subsequent post, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of another model for ICANN governance: an equal-footing multi-stakeholder model, and which by analogy can be extended to a model for enhanced co-operation.

Equality in Multi-stakeholderism: How Great Is That Idea?

I have discussed previously the pros and cons of an intergovernmental model and a hierarchical multi-stakeholder model for the management of ICANN, and by analogy for the furtherance of enhanced co-operation. In this post, I analyse a third broad model of oversight of ICANN by an equal-footing multi-stakeholder organization.

Model III: Oversight by a Equal-Footing Multi-stakeholder Organisation

Parallel Enhanced Co-operation Model: Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Model III is a modification of Model II in that it allows for the participation of all stakeholders in not just policy deliberation but also policy decision. Apart from the argument that policy decisions should be confined to nation-States who are the representatives of their citizens, it cannot be denied that a political inertia prevails for the non-involvement of other stakeholders in decision-making processes as any such move would be unprecedented. At the December 2010 UNCSTD conference, it was argued by India that the involvement of stakeholders apart from the nation-State representatives in the finalization of policy would be in contradiction to UN procedural rules. The question then arises why such a multi-stakeholder body cannot be relegated to an extra-UN forum. Pursuant to this, some critics of the hierarchical multi-stakeholder model have suggested the expansion of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to decision-making processes. Though the IGF is convened by the CSTD, which is a part of the ECOSOC, it is not a body falling under UN umbrella and has flexible procedures which grant each stakeholder an equal footing in policy discussion. Private sector and civil society discuss policy with nation-State representatives on an equal status. The IGF however, is perceived to be a largely dying forum as it does not presently have the power to further enhanced co-operation, i.e. it cannot take decisions with respect to internet policy. This has heightened the sense of dissatisfaction with IGF especially among the newly developing countries, who have come to view the IGF as a mechanism to foster the status quo which is favourable to the developed nations, particularly the US. Expansion of IGF mandate to policy decision-making could however mean that an enhanced co-operation mechanism including an oversight body for ICANN is put into place within an equal-footing multi-stakeholder model.

Pros

Arguments in favour of such model build up as following:

True multi-stakeholder participation: The present model seems to offer what the hierarchical multi-stakeholder model couldn’t—that is, the participation of all stakeholders at all levels of policy making.
Effective checks on nation-State power: By ensuring the participation of all stakeholders in policy discussion and decision processes, the equal-footing multi-stakeholder model effectively checks the power of each stakeholder in unilaterally advancing its own interests.

Cons

But all is not pink and perfect even here. The criticisms of this model run as following:

Use of unelected representatives in decision-making: The problem of recognition of stakeholder representatives has already been outlined earlier. The equal-footing multi-stakeholder model seems to compound this problem by additionally giving the stakeholders whose legitimacy is questionable, a say in the decision-making process. This has been criticized as undemocratic. The involvement of the private sector in decision-making further aggravates those who have seen liberalisation and globalization deepening the economic divide and enabling covert violations of human rights in the garb of “development.”

Allocation of votes: If all stakeholders are indeed involved in the decision-making process, it remains an issue whether each of them should be granted an equal vote. Should private interests be granted the same voting power as the civil society which purports to act in public benefit? Should both of these be granted equal voting power as nation-States, which traditionally have had exclusivity over governance at international settings? These questions remain unresolved.
Failure of consensual decision-making: An alternative to policy decision-making by voting in Model III can be policy decision-making by consensus. It is however argued that involvement of all stakeholders with largely polar interests in decision-making will never produce a consensus, and forestall decision-making altogether: The inability of the IGF, an equal footing multi-stakeholder body, to reach agreement on governance issues, which has led to reduced faith and participation in such a model is often cited in this regard. It is argued that in such instances the use of the nation-State as a mediator between these contradictory interests is essential—a suggestion which relegates one back to Model II. However it is important to note that such an argument naively assumes nation-States to be too benign entities with their agenda being public interest exclusively. It cannot be forgotten that many nation-States of the world have not even been born out of democratic processes like universal adult franchise; and even the most liberal of democratic States do enact questionable laws repressive of basic human rights and freedoms.

A subsequent post analyses the last broad model for ICANN governance: the replacement of oversight function by participatory accountability mechanisms.

Governance by Participatory Accountability Mechanisms

In the last few posts, I have analysed the advantages and disadvantages of an intergovernmental model, a hierarchical multi-stakeholder model, and an equal-footing multi-stakeholder model for the management of ICANN. The last post in this series discusses the fourth and last model in this respect- a model which proposes the replacement of ICANN oversight by participatory accountability mechanisms. It is important to note that at present it cannot be said that a parallel enhanced co-operation model has been formally proposed for this model of ICANN accountability. Therefore this model remains specific only to ICANN oversight, and does not by extension cover enhanced co-operation.

Model IV: Replacement of Oversight by Participatory Accountability Mechanisms

Parallel Enhanced Co-operation Model: None

Model IV envisions the complete removal of oversight function over ICANN by making it an independent body. The idea is to make ICANN self-regulating.

There are however, two variants of this model which are suggested in this regard. The first envisions slight modifications to the status quo by persuading the US government to release control over ICANN via the IANA contract and also eliminating the role of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Moreover, the reviews system under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoCs) needs to be strengthened so that ICANN keeps respecting the basic principles on internet freedom while discharging its technical functions. This proposal supports the usage of the current RIR mechanism for addressing public policy issues in technical governance. RIR refers to a Regional Internet Registry, each of which has its own technical community which considers such issues. The difference here from regular policy-making is that public policy questions would be answered keeping in mind technical feasibility. This is an approach which seems to be working for the past decade, and has led to the conclusion of policies which suit regional concerns specifically. For example in the ARIN region, residential privacy concerns cause that information be redacted from the public WHOIS directory per community developed policy. It can further be noted that good policies tend to get adapted across all RIRs.

The proponents of this first variant of Model IV exist especially within the internet technical community, which argues that the simplest solution to technical governance is to remove governmental interference in ICANN processes by any nation-State anywhere in the world, thus leaving technical governance entirely to the technical community, who are people who understand and can provide solutions for the technical structure of the internet the best. It is thought among this group that the existing internal administrative processes of ICANN are sufficient to ensure good governance

The second variant suggests the removal of oversight function by replacing it with a membership-at-large structure for the ICANN. This would mean that any interested individual from anywhere in the world could apply to be a Board member in the ICANN and participate in the decisions which it makes. It calls for dissolution of the GAC and the participation of nation-State reps via the Supporting Organisations of the ICANN. It further mandates that an international agreement be undertaken whereby nation-States agree not to interfere in the functioning of ICANN or use it for censorship purposes. Though as a negotiating point for nation-States, it proposes that the control of ccTLDs be transferred to the national governments who should be allowed to exercise complete sovereignty over them. In short, this variant seems to propose two parallel running regimes for the internet: one embodying the global internet, another comprising of a bunch of nationally-controlled internets under the ccTLD domains.

The proponents of this second variant are largely skeptical for governmental and bureaucratic forces. At the same time, they are concerned about potential corruption rising within the ICANN due to unregulated market influences and call for reforms within the ICANN administration which would make it directly accountable to people who use the internet all over the world.

Both these variants of Model IV envision governmental involvement as supportive of a shared legal framework which upholds accountability in the ICANN, and provides non-State actors a legal basis for settling important disputes, at the same time leaving larger internet policy questions out of the framework and focusing on only the technical issues.

Thus by limiting itself to technical policy issues is specific to the ICANN oversight problem, Model IV proposal does not extend to the larger internet public policy issues which come up in conjunction with enhanced co-operation. Hence there is no potential overall enhanced co-operation model parallel to it—an issue which Model IV suggests dealing with separately.

Pros

To summarise, the following arguments are put forth in favour of Model IV.

The Don’t Fix What is Not Broken Argument: This is the other pole to the purely intergovernmental oversight/enhanced co-operation model. The drift is that since the internet functions fine the way it is now without the involvement of governments, especially in the case of technical governance, why change to fix it. The problem with this argument being that it is not exactly true, and is perhaps too US-centric.

Hand-in-hand Technical and Policy Decision-making: The close involvement of the internet technical community in the policy-making process in this model would help to bring technical and public policy issues together. The problem with involvement of governments in technical policy-decision making process is that they tend to ignore the technical feasibility of their policy implications. The technical community on its part resents such political interference (that is not always internet-oriented) into technical matters which has the potential to nullify decades of hard work by the community. It is thus argued that removal of any patronizing oversight under Model IV would bring about smooth framing of technical policies by inclusion of the “technical” aspects.

Invocation of Participatory Democracy: Proponents of Model IV show little faith in the politics of representative democracy for the securitization of best interests of the citizens. This model therefore, prides itself in establishing a mechanism of participatory democracy via either the RIRs or the ICANN Board memberships-at-large variations, either of which it is believed, will help users of the internet participate directly in internet governance, while keeping in mind regional variations in concerns regarding governance issues.

Need for Principles over Redistribution of Power: Another argument which comes to the support of this model is that it intends to provide a set of principles to bring accountability to technical governance, rather than merely using multiple players to diffuse the power of the other. The argument here is that mere induction of a number of nation-States (like in Model I) or additional stakeholders (like in Models II and III) would not be of much consequence to contain unilateral power unless proper mechanisms for accountability are put into place. Rather, the addition of more stakeholders without guiding principles agreed upon by everyone is likely to make things worse for the abuse of power would then be possible by more actors.

Best Option in Absence of Globally Agreed Principles: This is a pragmatic argument for the first variation of Model IV. It entails that in the absence of any globally-acceptable principles of technical governance, this proposal is the most acceptable. The technical community especially feels that without global consensus of principles for technical governance, any talk about changing the existing mechanisms, which seems to be working decently, is an unhelpful approach.

Cons

But not everyone agrees with these arguments. The following criticisms are made with regard to Model IV.

Influence of jurisdiction of incorporation: The criticism here is that as long as ICANN is a private corporation incorporated in a particular jurisdiction, the laws and the executive policies of that jurisdiction would be enforced against ICANN, thus providing the relevant State a unilateral power to influence ICANN’s technical decisions. A counter-proposal in this regard however suggests that ICANN be protected from such jurisdictional interference via immunities under an international agreement.
Inadequacy of an Affirmation of Commitments structure: The AoCs structure particularly does not find much support with developing nations, because it seems to be a unilateral declaration without much force of law in the international scenario. It is demanded that something more than an agreement between the government of a particular country and a private corporation incorporated in that country be sought to protect the interests of internet users worldwide.
Excessive power to the technical community: Some of the critics view the present model to be excessively favorable to the internet technical community, which has strong bonds with the private sector in the internet industry. They see the involvement of the technical community in policy decisions as unnecessary and as a leeway for potential abuse by monopolization of such functions.

The four models discussed above present a very broad view of the conflicts present in the entire project of internet governance. There are infinitesimal other details associated with the task of governance which have an impact on how we are able to use the internet, but which could not be presented here in all their detail. As an unprecedented transnational medium of communication, the internet challenges the very idea of modern governance, which is enmeshed in the hierarchical nation-State framework. How we rise to this challenge will be consequential in determining whether a new technology with the potential of completely free flow of information across any boundaries can be preserved, or whether traditional boundaries of regulation succeed in moulding the internet to its form. Or whether in the process, both the technology and our idea of governance will be transformed in ways hitherto unknown.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/issues-in-internet-governance

Finance and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-02-28T04:40:27Z

Financial privacy involves the protection of consumers from unlawful access to financial accounts by private and public bodies, and the unlawful disclosure, sharing, or commercial use of financial information.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/finance-and-privacy.pdf

Govt plans inter-ministerial panel on Internet policy

praskrishna — 2012-09-25T10:28:08Z

The government may set up an inter-ministerial panel to improve coordination among the various arms of the government on Internet-related issues such as governance, commerce and security, according to a senior government official who didn’t want to be named.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was originally published in LiveMint on September 19, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The panel will have representation from government departments including information technology, telecom, home, external affairs and commerce among others. The proposal is being considered because there are multiple stakeholders involved, said the official. The panel will be most likely be headed by the department of electronics and information technology, which is currently the policymaking body on the Internet.

Over the past year, the government has been criticized over several Internet-related issues, all of them to do with censorship. It received flak recently for the way it sought to contain the spread of hate messages over the Internet that had led to communal violence and a panic exodus by people from the north-eastern states in some cities.

Moreover, with the underlying aim of having a bigger say in global policymaking pertaining to the Internet, the government had proposed the establishment of the United Nations Committee on Internet Related Policy (UN-CIRP). The agency’s mandate will include developing and establishing international public policies relating to the Internet; coordinating and overseeing bodies responsible for the technical and operational functioning of the Internet; facilitating negotiation of treaties; undertaking arbitration and dispute resolution; and crisis management, among others.

The government has said that the intent behind proposing such a body was not to control the Internet but to develop a mechanism for globally acceptable and harmonized policy making. The move though has largely been construed as an effort by governments to regulate the Internet.

Currently, the Internet is largely governed by the not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). However, the government says ICANN is dominated mostly by the US, explaining the need for a body such as UN-CIRP.

Another government official confirmed that an inter-ministerial panel is currently being “mulled” over. This official, who also did not want to be identified, said the Internet governance policy is increasing in importance and there was a need to discuss whether the current global policymaking structure would be relevant in the next five years.

“We need to firm up the country’s stand at international forums of the Internet and an inter-ministerial committee will aid in bringing some kind of clarity,” he said.

Any proposal for better coordination between different wings of the government would be welcome, said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

“The thumb rule with governance, be it international or national, is that coordination policy formulation bodies is a good idea, but we can’t damn or praise them over the process,” he said. “We have to see what coordination results out of the body.”

Rajya Sabha member of Parliament Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh opposing UN-CIRP, had said that India’s proposal was made without much discussion and stakeholder consultation.

There wasn’t enough clarity about what the government trying to regulate through the body, Abraham said.

“Is it to regulate citizens or industry or government activity or for regulation around IP (intellectual property), competition, data protection, crime or tax, we don’t know,” he said.

The problem with UN-CIRP is that India would be supported by countries that are against free access to the Internet such as Cuba, China and Russia to name a few, Naresh Ajwani, a member of the Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC) said on Wednesday on the sidelines of a meet in Delhi on the issue.

However, the government feels that not only will UN-CIRP lead to India having a bigger role in global policymaking for the Internet, it will also help in dealing with crises better as it will lead to enhanced cooperation between nations.

Photo: Aniruddha Chowdhury/Mint

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-com-sep-19-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-plans-inter-ministerial-panel-on-internet-policy

Analyzing the Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism and Rioting Edition) Part II

snehashish — 2012-09-27T10:42:30Z

Snehashish Ghosh does a further analysis of the leaked list of the websites blocked by the Indian Government from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 (“leaked list”).

Unnecessary Blocks and Mistakes:

http://hinduexistance.files.wordpress.com/..., which appears on the leaked list, does not exist because the URL is incorrect. However, the correct URL does contain an image which, in my opinion, can be considered to be capable of inciting violence. It has not been blocked due to a spelling error in the order. Instead of blocking hinduexistence.wordpress.com/... the DoT has ordered the blocking of hinduexistance.wordpress.com/..., which does not exist.
Two URLs in the block order are from the website of the High Council for Human Rights, Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The reason for blocking these two links from this particular website is unclear.
The website of the Union of NGOs of the Islamic World was blocked. Again, the reason for blocking this website remains unclear.
URLs such as, http://farazahmed.com/..., mumblingminion.blogspot.com, were blocked. The content on these URLs was in fact debunking the fake photographs.
Certain blocked Facebook pages did not have any bearing on the North East exodus which was the main reason behind the blocks. For example, Facebook link leading to United States Institute for Peace page was blocked.

Duration of the Block

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) did not specify the period for which the block has been implemented in its orders. As a result of which certain URLs still remain blocked while a majority of the links in the leaked list can be accessed. Lack of clear directions from the DoT has resulted in haphazard blocking and certain internet service providers (ISPs) have lifted the block on certain links whereas some other ISPs have continued with a complete block.

How have the intermediaries reacted to the block orders?

Going by the leaked list of websites blocked by DoT, it issued the block orders to ‘all internet service licensees’. Intermediaries that do not fall in the category of 'internet service licensees’ were also sent a separate set of requests for taking down third party content. However, it is unclear under which provision of the law such request was made by the Government.

Internet Service Licensees

The internet service licensee or the ISPs have not followed any uniform system to notify that a particular URL or website in the leaked list is blocked according to DoT’s orders. The lack of transparency in the implementation of the block orders, have a chilling effect on free speech.

For instance, BSNL returns the following messages:

"This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications" or “This site has been blocked as per instructions from Department of Telecom (DOT).”

However, these messages are not uniform across all the URLs/websites in the leaked list. BSNL does not generate any response for the majority of the URLs in the leaked list. This results in ‘invisible censorship’ as the person who is trying to access the blocked URL does not have any means to know whether a particular URL is unavailable or certain sites are blocked by government orders.

Lack of notification does not only infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression but also violates the fundamental right to a constitutional remedy guaranteed under Article 32 of our Constitution. The person aggrieved by such block orders cannot approach the Court for a remedy because there is no means to figure out:

(a) Description of the content blocked?

(b) Who has issued the block order/request?

(d) Who has implemented the block order/request? and

(e) What was the reason for the block?

The intermediaries should provide with the above notification details while implementing a block order issued by the Government.

Intermediaries hosting third party content:

More than 100 out of the 309 blocks are Facebook (http and https) URLs. Facebook has not informed its users about the reasons behind unavailability of certain pages or content. This is another instance of invisible censorship. However, YouTube, a Google service, has maintained certain level of transparency, and informs the user that the content has been blocked as per ‘government removal request’. It is interesting to note that certain YouTube user accounts were terminated as well. It is unclear whether this was as a result of the block order. Furthermore, links associated with blogger.com, which is another service provided by Google, have been removed.

This was re-posted by Medianama on September 26, 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii

ಭಾರತೀಯ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪ್ರೊಫೈಲಿಂಗ್ ಮಸೂದೆಯ ಸೀಳುನೋಟ

praskrishna — 2012-10-03T15:42:54Z

ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡಸಂಹಿತೆಯನ್ನು ೨೦೦೫ರಲ್ಲಿ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಾಡಲಾಯಿತು. ಇದರ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಆಪಾದಿತರನ್ನು ಬಂಧಿಸಿದಾಗ ಅವರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿವಿಧ ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಲು ಕಾನೂನುರೀತ್ಯಾ ಅವಕಾಶ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸುವುದು.

ದಂಡಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ ೫೩ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ, ಅಪರಾಧವನ್ನು ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಒದಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು “ನಂಬಲು ತಕ್ಕಮಟ್ಟಿನ ಕಾರಣಗಳಿದ್ದರೆ”, ಆಪಾದಿತನನ್ನು ಬಂಧಿಸಿದಾಗ ಆತನನ್ನು ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಡಿಸಬಹುದು. ೨೦೦೫ರ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ, ಈ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಇವೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಿಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸಲಾಯಿತು: ರಕ್ತದ, ರಕ್ತಕಲೆಗಳ, ವೀರ್ಯದ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ, ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಾಬ್ಗಳ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ, ಉಗುಳು, ಬೆವರು, ಕೂದಲಿನ ಸ್ಯಾಂಪಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಉಗುರಿನ ತುಂಡುಗಳ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ. ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವಶ್ಯವೆಂದು ನೋಂದಾಯಿತ ವೈದ್ಯರು ಭಾವಿಸುವ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪ್ರೊಫೈಲಿಂಗ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಂತಹ ಇತರ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗಳ ಸಹಿತವಾಇ ಆಧುನಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ವೈಜ್ನಾನಿಕ ವಿಧಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿ ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ನಡೆಸಬೇಕು.

ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಪಾದಿತ ಷಾಮೀಲಾಗಿರುವುದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಯಲಿಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಆದೇಶ ನೀಡುವುದರ ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧತೆಯನ್ನು ತೊಗೊರಾಣಿ ಅಲಿಯಾಸ್ ಕೆ. ದಮಯಂತಿ ವರ್ಸಸ್ ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರರು (೨೦೦೪ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಎಲ್ಜೆ ೪೦೦೩ – ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ) ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ ಹೈಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಎತ್ತಿ ಹಿಡಿದಿದೆ. ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಆಪಾದಿತ ಸಹಕರಿಸದಿದ್ದರೆ, ಅವನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವ್ಯತಿರಿಕ್ತ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಮೂಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ಈ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ವೈಯುಕ್ತಿಕ ಗೌಪ್ಯತೆಯ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿದ ಬಳಿಕ, ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಆದೇಶಿಸುವ ಮುನ್ನ, ಈ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದು ಹೈಕೋರ್ಟ್ ನಿರ್ದೇಶನ ನೀಡಿದೆ: (೧) ಅಪರಾಧ ಎಸಗುವುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಆಪಾದಿತನು ಎಷ್ಟರ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿರಬಹುದು? (೨) ಅಪರಾಧದ ಗಂಭೀರತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಪರಾಧ ಎಸಗಿದ ಸಂದರ್ಭ (೩) ಆಪಾದಿತನ ಪ್ರಾಯ, ದೈಹಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಆರೋಗ್ಯ (೪) ಅಪರಾಧದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಪಾದಿತ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಖಚಿತಪಡಿಸುವ ಅಥವಾ ಖುಲಾಸೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಸಾಕ್ಷಾಧಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸುವ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಆತಂಕಕಾರಿಯಾದ ಮತ್ತು ಕಾರ್ಯಸಾಧ್ಯವಾದ ಇತರ ವಿಧಾನಗಳು ಇವೆಯೇ? (೫) ಆಪಾದಿತನು ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಲು ಕಾರಣಗಳೇನು?

ಸಂಸತ್ತಿನ ಅನುಮೋದನೆಗಾಗಿ ಕಾದಿರುವ ೨೦೦೭ರ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪ್ರೊಫೈಲಿಂಗ್ ಮಸೂದೆಯ ಉದ್ದೇಶವನ್ನು ಚುಟುಕಾಗಿ ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳಬಹುದು: “ದೇಶದ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ನ್ಯಾಯವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಕಿಂಚಿತ್ ಸಂಪರ್ಕಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದವರೆಲ್ಲರ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ದಾಖಲಿಸುವ “ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕನ್ನು” ರಚಿಸುವ ಮಹತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷಿ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ.” ಅಂದರೆ, ಸಂಶಯಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಗಾದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು, ಕಾನೂನು ಮುರಿಯುವವರು, ಕಾಣೆಯಾದ್ವರು ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವ-ಇಚ್ಚೆಯವರು – ಇವರ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ವಿವರಗಳ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಮಾಹಿತಿ

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cadcbecb0ca4caf-ca1cbfc8eca8ccdc8e-caaccdcb0cabcb2cbfc82c97ccd-caecb8cc2ca6cc6caf-cb8cb3cc1ca8c9f

Mind of the millennium teen

praskrishna — 2012-09-22T08:34:08Z

Say mom, did you have electricity when you were growing up?" Twelve-year-old Aditya throws a casual query at his 38-year-old mother during a power cut.

This article by Atul Sethi was published in the Times of India on September 16, 2012. Nishant Shah is quoted.

Even before the bemused mother can revert, the backup inverter springs into action and her son is once again immersed in his online game, competing against friends in multiple locations, most of whom perhaps have no idea how growing up in the 1900s — a different century for them — was like. These kids — a generation born in 2000 — would, by next year, be the millennium's first teens. Their arrival in the world roughly coincided with the dawn of the information age — the internet implosion, google search, mobile phones, glitzy malls — stuff that was not available even to their immediate predecessors growing up barely a decade before in the late 1990s.

It's a generation, then, that has seen a completely different picture of the world which has accordingly shaped its world view. That it's a smarter generation is largely due to its fascination — some would even say obsession — with technology. Arsh Srivastava, a 12-year-old student of Class VII at Chandigarh's St John's High School, says he was fascinated by mobile phones ever since he was a baby. He now uses a Samsung Galaxy S smartphone and aspires for a S3. Not surprising then, that social scientists term it a generation of 'digital natives' , who take to technology like fish to water. "You can't blame them," says Shiv Visvanathan, professor at the Jindal School of Government & Public Policy. "This is a generation that has trained in a new kind of literacy, which involves technology extensively. For them, information and technology are commodities. They'd die of boredom if deprived of either commodity."

The solution to boredom, in the tween manual, is the golden 'F' word. Facebook is the alternate world which every kid below 13 aspires to reach. What makes it cooler is that it's officially off-limits to them. But it's a restriction that's easily bypassed. Anmol, a 11-year-old from Kolkata, says most of his friends are there. Those who are not, are told off: 'Go gal'. That's 'Go, get a life dude' in tweenspeak. Once inside the inner circle, there is a sense of achievement, but only till the next new technological marvel catches their attention.

This extreme restlessness is the hallmark of a generation that has to keep pace with fast-changing technology which, many say, is leaving them with seriously low attention-spans — a problem that their teachers often have to contend with. "For teachers, the challenge is engaging them through lessons and activities that develop reflection, patience and sensitivity which can balance their moods and behaviour," says Ameeta Mulla Wattal, principal of Springdale's School at Pusa Road in Delhi.

In terms of awareness, though, again facilitated by technology, this is a generation that is aggressively aware. Sexologist Prakash Kothari says that the internet — which most kids start using by the time they are 6 or 7 — has ensured that they are sexually knowledgeable much earlier. "I have had instances of parents bringing boys as young as 8 or 9, who have started masturbating after they learnt about it from the net," he says.

Because it's a generation that's maverick in its choices, and often damning in its quick judgments on brands, marketers catering to this segment can't take them for granted. Smita Jatia of Mc Donald's , a brand that many tweens have grown up on, says it's important to keep their behaviour and dynamic wants and desires in mind. "We have to constantly innovate and elevate their 'I'm lovin it' experience through menu options which can keep them happy."

Impatient and restless may be the words that older generations may use to describe the millennium's first teens, but there's no denying that they symbolize the way society, and indeed, life has changed around the world. "We live in accelerated times," says Nishant Shah of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society. "The breathlessness of our times is evident in everything — from the kind of movies we make to the ways in which our news and information travel. At the end of the day, our younger generations are also products of our times."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-times-of-india-sept-16-2012-atul-sethi-mind-of-the-millennium-teen

A multistakeholder discussion on India’s Position in the UN for Internet Governance UN Committee for Internet Related Policies (UN-CIRP)

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T09:49:26Z

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) is hosting this event in New Delhi on September 19, 2012 from 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Sunil Abraham has been invited as a panelist.

Discussions and debate on the issue of internet governance has increased over the past few years. The entire issue of internet governance has become strikingly important for the internet users, government, Indian industry, mobile and internet service providers, internet companies, social media, civil society, academia as well as youth and women on account of the fact that internet subscriber base has already reached the 125 million mark, and is expected to increase dramatically under the targets established in NTP 2012. Unlike in telecommunications, issues related to internet and data penetration requires not just discussion between government and service providers but cooperation and dialogue amongst a host of other stakeholders – commonly known as Multistakeholder Groups.

International discourse

At a global level, after the declaration of the 2005 Tunis Agenda, there is a general agreement that internet governance structure should be dispersed, multistakeholder and bottom up rather than top down, and not controlled by a single entity. There are a number of proposals pending which seek to address internet governance issues through a multistakeholder process including at the UN, IGF and Council of Europe.

Our role as stakeholders in internet development will ideally involve a domestic perspective as well as a need for global engagement to shape the international dialogue. The decisions that are being made over the next few months at international fora, will have a deep and lasting impact on our businesses, operations, architecture, revenue streams at one level and access, diversity, cyber security, content regulation, multilingualism and management of critical internet resources at another. Government, in close collaboration with other stakeholders, has a critical role, especially relating to policy making, cyber security, spam, crisis management, digital piracy, and dispute resolution to name a few.

India’s proposal in UN for internet governance

In October 2011 the Government of India submitted a proposal for establishment of a new institutional mechanism for global internet governance by way of the United Nations Committee on Internet Related Policy (UN-CIRP). The UN-CIRP’s mandate will include inter alia tasks such as developing and establishing international public policies relating to global issues of internet; coordinating and overseeing bodies responsible for the technical and operational functioning of the internet; facilitating negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on internet related public policy; address developmental issues, promote and protect human rights, including the right to development; undertake arbitrations and dispute resolution where necessary and crisis management (detailed statement attached for your ready reference.)

The CIRP which finds its mandate in the Tunis Agenda 2005 (copy attached) under the process of Enhanced Cooperation will comprise of 50 member states chosen on basis of equitable geographic representations, supported by the regular budget of the United Nations, serviced by UNCTAD secretariat, reporting directly to the UN General assembly. It will ensure participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four advisory groups - one each for civil society, private sector, intergovernmental / international organizations, and the technical/academic community. It will also have its own research wing and keep close links with the IGF – for policy consultations and inputs.

Other countries have taken views keeping in mind their own best interest, including some who wish to continue with the existing governance process, others who seek an improvement in the existing process and those who seek a greater involvement of UN ITU in issues related to internet governance.

Multistakeholder Consultation

To have a detailed multistakeholder discussion FICCI has invited some of the most influential and informed voices for a panel discussion and interactive session with experts from 10:30 AM. to 01:00 PM. on Wednesday, 19^th September 2012, at FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi.

The panel and audience, apart from being experts will represent a multistakeholder group across various functions of the government, private sector, telecom and internet eco-system related companies, civil society, academia, legal experts, media organisations, technical community, and students and women. An equal number of experts will also intervene from the audience. The session is aimed at discussing in detail India’s proposal of UN-CIRP and provide multistakeholder inputs which will help inform and guide further dialogue at the upcoming international fora such as the 67^th UN General Assembly from September 26^th to 6^th October 2012, in New York, IGF from 6^th to 9^th November 2012 in Baku, and WCIT from 3^rd to 14^th December 2012, in Dubai.

Agenda

10.30 11.00	Registration and Networking
11.00 11.15	Introduction and Agenda Setting - by Mr. Virat Bhatia, Chairman, FICCI Communication & Digital Economy Committee
11.15 12.00	Panel Discussion
12.00 12.45	Taking stock, next steps and wrap-up by Mr. Virat Bhatia, Chairman, FICCI Communication & Digital Economy Committee

Proposed Panelists

Sl. No.	Name / Title	Representing
1.	Mr. Nitin Desai, Special Advisor to UN Secretary General on Internet Governance and Chairman of Multistakeholder Advisory Group for Internet Governance Forum (Formerly)	Internet Governance specialist
2.	Ambassador A Gopinathan, India’s Permanent Representative to UN in Geneva (Formerly)	Leading Diplomat Internet Governance
3.	Senior official from Department of Electronics & IT, Government of India *	Government
4.	Mr. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, President, Foundation for Media Professionals, India	Media
5.	Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change	Civil Society
6.	Mr. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Center for Internet and Society	Civil Society
7.	Mr. Rajesh Chharia, President, Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI)	ISP
8.	Mr. Naresh Ajwani, Member, NRO NC-Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC)	Industry
9.	Member of Parliament*	Politics
10.	Mr. Rajan Mathews, Director General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI)	Mobile Operators

* Invited. Confirmation awaited.

See India's Statement Proposing UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy
See the Tunis Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/multi-stakeholder-discussion-on-indias-position-in-the-un-for-un-cirp

The DNA Profiling Bill: Developing Best Practices

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T05:54:30Z

On the 27th of September 2012 the Centre for Internet & Society invites the public to a meeting and talk with international experts Helen Wallace from GeneWatch UK, and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics from the United States. The meeting will take place from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. at the India International Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi in Conference Room No. 2.

The public meeting and talk will focus on the proposed DNA Profiling Bill pending in Parliament and explore best practices concerning the collection, storage, and retention of DNA samples and best practices concerning the analysis of DNA samples and use of DNA samples as evidence in courts. Case studies from the US and the UK will be explored to understand what India can do better from the experiences of other countries.

Dr Helen Wallace

Dr Helen Wallace is Director of GeneWatch UK, a not-for-profit organisation which aims to engage members of the public in ensuring that genetic science and technologies are used in the public interest. She is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on the social and ethical issues raised by DNA databases and is widely quoted in the UK press. Helen provided expert evidence to the applicants in the case of S. and Marper v. the UK at the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Court ruled unanimously that the indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA database records was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. She has supplied both oral and written evidence on this issue to numerous parliamentary committees including the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee and the UK Science and Technology, Home Affairs and Constitutional Committees, as well as the scrutiny committee for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This new Act requires the removal of about a million innocent people's records from the UK National DNA Database and the destruction of all stored biological samples.

Jeremy Gruber

Jeremy Gruber is the JD, President and Executive Director of Council for Responsible Genetics. Jeremy joined CRG in March 2009. Previously he served as the legal director of the National Workrights Institute, a human rights organization dedicated to the rights of American workers. Prior to that he served as the field director for the ACLU’s National Taskforce on Civil Liberties in the Workplace. Jeremy has worked for over a decade on genetic non-discrimination legislation at the state and Federal level. He helped author and pass numerous state laws on genetic non-discrimination. Jeremy is a founder and executive committee member of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, a group of 500 organizations that advocated for genetic non-discrimination legislation on Capitol Hill and played a major role in the recently passed Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) by Congress. He worked closely with members of Congress and staff on GINA language as well as strategy and support. He is a prolific writer on privacy issues and is often consulted by state legislatures. He is regularly featured in print, radio and television. Jeremy holds a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from St. John’s University School of Law and a B.A. in Politics from Brandeis University.

Forensic DNA: A Human Rights Challenge

The above video was originally posted in YouTube

Click on the links below to download the files:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/the-dna-profiling-bill-developing-best-practices

DNA Databases and Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T05:39:06Z

Using DNA to trace people who are suspected of committing a crime has been a major advance in policing.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dna-databases-and-human-rights.pdf

Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression — Executive Summary

Rishabh Dara — 2016-04-24T11:54:22Z

This document provides a critique of “The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 and proposes an alternate set of Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-and-foe-executive-summary.pdf

Counter-proposal by the Centre for Internet and Society: Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Due Diligence and Information Removal) Rules, 2012

pranesh — 2016-04-24T11:48:49Z

Any restriction on freedom of speech should embody and be guided by the following principles, as identified by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/counter-proposal-by-cis-draft-it-intermediary-due-diligence-and-information-removal-rules-2012.pdf